Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

This might well be the worst AI in gaming history

adreeasaadreeasa Posts: 80Registered Users
We all know the basic issues, like **** diplomacy, AI needing bucket loads of cheats to even stand a chance and so on.

But scripting the AI to target the player against all odds to provide some level on challenge is just idiotic ; and i am not even talking about the "tested" chaos invasion.

I had a game yesterday where i joined a war against Durthu while playing the dwarfs bc i wanted to get military access across the border princes . Some turns later i saw Durthu ( down to the home province only at that point and 1 1/2 stacks ) with his full stack start to make his way down the map.

He ignored all the unguarded enemy settlements along the way and for ~10 turns went all the way to the badlands where he razed one of my small towns and then proceeded to wait around since all the others around it were too much for his stack. Not to mention he left his only province unguarded with 3 enemy factions around just to raze a town half way across the world owned by a faction with whom he never fought one battle and who was 20 power ranks above him......

GG CA, elite level scripting, i could write something in bash shell to do this as well.

Comments

  • rad13rad13 Member Posts: 545Registered Users
    this might well be the worst troll post in gaming history
  • luther84695luther84695 Member Posts: 348Registered Users
    I wouldn't call it a troll post. After playing for some time, I like to vent myself. But the OP is a little late to the discussion. People have been saying this for a long time, and supposedly, there are fixes in the works.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Posts: 4,569Registered Users
    No, just no.
    The AI has some problems (of which some might be credited to the scope of the game no AI could currently handle) but it is seriously not the worst AI its rather one of the more impressive ones.

    Problem is: If the game design and mechanics actively work against it, it frustrates players and they dont care about technical things in the background.
  • luther84695luther84695 Member Posts: 348Registered Users
    The AI is decent for it's computation time. I mean you can have a much much better AI if you are willing to wait 15 minutes between turns. The strength of AI is not just the programming code but the amount of time it can afford. I think AI in TW games are decent given the number of factions, the complexity of the campaign map, and the wait time.

    With that being said, the frustrating thing is that AI has been better in previous game. I mean I have nothing to complain about TW1 except for the stupid cowardly AI and the benny hill chase. The shogun 2 campaign AI seems even better than TW1 and things run quick between turns.

    So for some reason, things seem to deteriorate. All the problems are not related to the size and complexity of the map but mostly related to bugs, poor balancing, and strange design decisions.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Posts: 4,569Registered Users

    The AI is decent for it's computation time. I mean you can have a much much better AI if you are willing to wait 15 minutes between turns. The strength of AI is not just the programming code but the amount of time it can afford. I think AI in TW games are decent given the number of factions, the complexity of the campaign map, and the wait time.

    With that being said, the frustrating thing is that AI has been better in previous game
    . I mean I have nothing to complain about TW1 except for the stupid cowardly AI and the benny hill chase. The shogun 2 campaign AI seems even better than TW1 and things run quick between turns.

    So for some reason, things seem to deteriorate. All the problems are not related to the size and complexity of the map but mostly related to bugs, poor balancing, and strange design decisions.

    Probably there are some more algorithms that determin AI but with modern PCs I dont think it is a matter of power / time and as long as we not have machine learning AI supporting the game I doubt people can come up with much more complicated AI algorithms that would need much more time that easily.

    I also doubt the AI was better in the past. In the end the user experience is everything that counts though. Benny Hilling and being coward is probably much more "clever" and calculated than what Shogun 2s AI was doing. Problem is that it just isnt fun. Shogun 2s AI worked much better in the context of its game than TWW1+2s AI works in the context of its game.
  • BlingermanBlingerman Junior Member Posts: 301Registered Users
    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 12,599Registered Users
    edited January 16

    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.

    False, false, false.

    Paradox AI is pretty mundane, you only never notice because you're innundated with busywork in every Paradox title which keeps your attention away.

  • NemoxNemox Posts: 1,826Registered Users

    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.

    Which Paradox games have you been playing? Their AI is no better and makes similar ridiculous decisions that are easy to abuse.
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Posts: 597Registered Users
    edited January 16
    It´s not so much that the AI is bad (civ 6 has pretty crappy AI as well which detracts from the experience, it´s just more enjoyable since it isnt completely biased) as that it is bloody annoying and counterintuitive. It´s about the whole experience. You can compare it to Civ 6:

    In Civ 6, the problem with building early wonders isn´t that the AI gets a bonus on higher difficulties, it is that the bonus is too large, you get nothing if the AI beats you to the wonder (you used to at least get a cash refund), and the wonder is bad (too expensive) to begin with. Even if you DO manage to chop forests and beat the AI, you are 95% better off building something else.

    Thusly, one part of the game straight out the window if you want to be competitive. Bad design.

    In WHTW, the AI is actually kinda reasonable; it stays in cities, it defends provinces against revolts, it doesnt build COMPLETELY bonkers province setups, it doesnt suicide armies. The problem is that its priorities are stacked against the player, and the AI seems to take individual decisions without analysing any consequences.

    The AI is programmed to WANT to go to war, with anyone, they don´t need a strategic reason. Its more about relationship, which again is biased against the player.

    The result is that regardless of race, strategy, whatever, the AI is programmed to want to go to war with the player and then attack the player. And I suspect this decision is mostly detached from their actual ability to do anything.

    I suppose this is why they still frequently declare war and then never attack.

    So, while the player thinks ´I want a good relationship with dwarves because of lore reasons, and I want to attack this faction because it is weak´, the AI goes: Hate player, want war because I am not at war with anyone, declare war on player.

    Then it goes: 'have weak target, go there. No longer have weak target, wait for weak target'.

    Individually the decisions kinda make sense, it´s just that there is no coherent strategy behind it.

    Hell I had Teclis declare war on me as Tyrion.
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Posts: 597Registered Users
    edited January 16
    I think the problem is that the AI makes decisions that individually make some sense, but there´s no coherent strategy. The AI is programmed to WANT to go to war, for any and no reason, ignoring lore and story. It´s more because of relationship status which is biased against the player (I had Teclis declare war on me as Tyrion). So the AI isnt at war, doesnt like you, declares war. It seems only after that does it realise it doesnt have superior numbers, meaning it doesnt want to attack, and so it just stays there, sometimes doing nothing and then begging for peace 20 turns later. If there is an easy target they beeline for it, only to realise afterwards that they have put themselves in a sticky situation and their attack made little sense to begin with.

    Solution would be to put in coherent strategies on the AI´s part.
  • BlingermanBlingerman Junior Member Posts: 301Registered Users
    Nemox said:

    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.

    Which Paradox games have you been playing? Their AI is no better and makes similar ridiculous decisions that are easy to abuse.
    Europa Universalis IV diplomacy works perfect. Peace treaties and negotiations works very well too. I have always dreamt of a EUIV with the Total war battles...

    You cant dislike Paradox DLC strategy, but the AI is far better than the one in Total war games, being much more complex.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 8,397Registered Users
    This isn't even the worst AI in TW history. Did you play Rome 2 after launch? I didn't because it broke and wouldn't even load till a year later with a new computer.
    Game 3 must come with Demons as 1 undivided race as a core with any Monogod races only as DLC. Anything less will only hurt the game.

    It's a fact that game 2 is superior to game 1. Steam reviews prove this.
  • DarkLordDDarkLordD Posts: 1,003Registered Users
    I have to say the AI surprised me many times ... how bretonnia came to the rescue of the empire in my mortal empires campaign was ... just ... MAJESTIC! Truly , I though, the empire was DONE? but there he was like a shining deity, King Leoncour ! All AI controlled. I was Carcassonne and it was mighty cool too see this all happening.

    Can't really explain how it all went down in this gameplay, only that I have had a few moments now in warhammer 2 where I thought to myself . WT... the A.I. just did that !? (In a good sense)

    So I have to disagree with you sir. Worst in history ? No no no no .. not at all .. it makes some stupid moves sometimes but it also can make you surprise! And that's awesome.

    I hate all the bashing on warhammer .. because they TRULY don't deserve it ... they made such a great game ! And still so many complain, saying stuff like you do, with is fine, you have the right to. But tell me ? . Why stick around and keep playing if everything is SO bad !? Why play !? Spare yourself the trouble I would think, but no they keep playing ... STRANGE! Now that is CRYPTIC TO ME
    Dark Lord D the Fearsome (I) ~~~ First Dark Lord of the Old World.

    --~~ let them hate me as long as they fear me ------------------------- Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Roman Emperor
  • IcestrugleIcestrugle Junior Member Posts: 779Registered Users
    I am playing from Rome 1. Rome 1 and medieval 2 haven't any challenge from AI and people didn't have any expectations. From shogun 2 the AI have improved vastly in special the campaign AI. So I don't understand worst AI idea. The only other series that I can compare is Arthur .. and the AI and balancing were pretty bad but still ok game.
  • FrostPawFrostPaw Junior Member Posts: 648Registered Users
    DarkLordD said:


    I hate all the bashing on warhammer .. because they TRULY don't deserve it ... they made such a great game ! And still so many complain, saying stuff like you do, with is fine, you have the right to. But tell me ? . Why stick around and keep playing if everything is SO bad !? Why play !? Spare yourself the trouble I would think, but no they keep playing ... STRANGE! Now that is CRYPTIC TO ME

    People only hate what they love, If they truly thought it was bad they would just leave and say nothing.
  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 3,124Registered Users

    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.

    "Your low character is the subject of Greek plays!"

    I don't know, Paradox gives it's AI a shedload of cheats too, largely financial. And the behaviour of AI allies up until quite recently was notoriously bad, although I understand it's changed a good bit as of recent months.

    Do admit when modders are able to tweak things like diplomacy to function more sensibly I have no idea why CA can't or won't.


  • Lord_NathanaelLord_Nathanael Posts: 1,481Registered Users
    the hyperbole during the use of english language never ceases to amaze me.

    like, can't we have a single thread or discussion without hyperbole, metaphors, sarcasm, cynism? that pattern gets old really fast


    feel free to point out my errors, I'd like to improve my english
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Posts: 597Registered Users
    Do admit when modders are able to tweak things like diplomacy to function more sensibly I have no idea why CA can't or won't.


    Ok so now here is where it gets interesting. I havent looked at it that much, but from what I´ve seen a lot of the coding in TWH is based on previous code. For example, the anti-large mechanic is technically 'bonus vs elephants', from historical games.

    My suspicion is the code is such a mess at this point they dont even know themselves whats in it.

    This explains Norsca, the difficulty bug, etc... I think there was a patch for Empire back in the day that actually reduced the size of the game a lot, since they initially had to ship it with tons of code that wasnt used - because they didnt know what code WAS actually used.

    They would probably benefit from letting a team just clean up the mess and playtest it thoroughly, though I guess money talks.
  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 3,124Registered Users

    the hyperbole during the use of english language never ceases to amaze me.

    like, can't we have a single thread or discussion without hyperbole, metaphors, sarcasm, cynism? that pattern gets old really fast

    If you're British, I'm afraid sarcasm and cynicism are obligatory. It's in our unwritten constitution, and Her Majesty herself comes to your house and pulls your nose hairs if you ever make a statement without both.


  • TolgharTolghar Posts: 77Registered Users
    I wouldn't call it the worst AI actually tries to win this time(I am looking at you Rome 2). It is actually decent compared to what we had in older games.
  • Grimgor_the_CAkeGrimgor_the_CAke Posts: 1,200Registered Users
    Total War games have been about giving players battles. If the AI does not "work together" against players, it could be very boring. By the way, it seems you are playing on very hard as I only find the AI works as you describe when playing very hard but less likely at normal and hard.

    Also, it is very natural for Wood Elves to leave its province alone because the defense buff from its buildings and tech are all very good.
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Posts: 1,806Registered Users
    seienchin said:

    No, just no.
    The AI has some problems (of which some might be credited to the scope of the game no AI could currently handle) but it is seriously not the worst AI its rather one of the more impressive ones.

    Problem is: If the game design and mechanics actively work against it, it frustrates players and they dont care about technical things in the background.

    a) Players aren't supposed to care about technical things. We expect and demand naturally acting AI. We pay for that which relieves us from caring about technical things. It's job of those we payed the money.

    b) Scope/Scale of the game have nothing to do with AI. Only thing that can be affected by scope/scale are turn times. And I'm happy to wait 5 mins every turn if AI was to act like well educated, inteligent, 25+ human being.

    c) Current AI is horrible and it's no surprise that new topics condemning it grow like mushrooms after rain.

    d) There's no way to say if it's "the worst AI ever encountered in games" because there are so many cheats and hacks used to hide stupidity of AI that it's hard to see "pure AI decisions".

    For example, current siege battles are wall-climbing-competition garbage because CA was unable to make AI even remotely smart on real siege maps in previous games.

    Beeline AI on the other hand is used to pose any difficulty to the player, since CA was unable to make AI prioritize "his own business" and be challenging at the same time.

    I still would prefer easier game over **** AI actions (even though I consider myself hardcore gamer and I easily slash through Dark Souls 3 like it was mobile Mario game) but there will be people prefering cheaty difficulty for the sake of difficulty even if it doesn't make any sense.

    In the end there is only one solution: CA has to improve AI. And I mean "rewrite from scratch" level of improvement.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 15,586Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Moved to Rants.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 476Registered Users

    Do admit when modders are able to tweak things like diplomacy to function more sensibly I have no idea why CA can't or won't.


    Ok so now here is where it gets interesting. I havent looked at it that much, but from what I´ve seen a lot of the coding in TWH is based on previous code. For example, the anti-large mechanic is technically 'bonus vs elephants', from historical games.

    My suspicion is the code is such a mess at this point they dont even know themselves whats in it.

    This explains Norsca, the difficulty bug, etc... I think there was a patch for Empire back in the day that actually reduced the size of the game a lot, since they initially had to ship it with tons of code that wasnt used - because they didnt know what code WAS actually used.

    They would probably benefit from letting a team just clean up the mess and playtest it thoroughly, though I guess money talks.
    Seems like you never looked at the modding tools the code or the mentioned mods, all these mods do is changing the AI in a more player friendly way so that AI act on higher difficulties like it would act on lower difficulties. Yes it alters how the AI react by changing number but it doesn't make it better or worse, the outcome is just different but the AI is the same. So just because some players want a more player friendly diplomacy AI on higher difficulties others are fine with CAs decission that the AIs task is to challenge the player in all possible ways even if it seems silly from a players self-preservation point of view which the AI don't have.

    Cleaning code for no reason doesn't make sense it is a lot of work, can crash everything if something wrong got deleted and if they reintroduce some feature from former games they would have to rewrite it instead of just modify it. You can see it like DNA which is over 90% inactive and unused but not using it doesn't make it bad, just larger but with the good point that there are things allready in it if you need it instead of inventing it again.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Posts: 7,138Registered Users

    Do admit when modders are able to tweak things like diplomacy to function more sensibly I have no idea why CA can't or won't.


    Ok so now here is where it gets interesting. I havent looked at it that much, but from what I´ve seen a lot of the coding in TWH is based on previous code. For example, the anti-large mechanic is technically 'bonus vs elephants', from historical games.

    My suspicion is the code is such a mess at this point they dont even know themselves whats in it.

    This explains Norsca, the difficulty bug, etc... I think there was a patch for Empire back in the day that actually reduced the size of the game a lot, since they initially had to ship it with tons of code that wasnt used - because they didnt know what code WAS actually used.

    They would probably benefit from letting a team just clean up the mess and playtest it thoroughly, though I guess money talks.
    Seems like you never looked at the modding tools the code or the mentioned mods, all these mods do is changing the AI in a more player friendly way so that AI act on higher difficulties like it would act on lower difficulties. Yes it alters how the AI react by changing number but it doesn't make it better or worse, the outcome is just different but the AI is the same. So just because some players want a more player friendly diplomacy AI on higher difficulties others are fine with CAs decission that the AIs task is to challenge the player in all possible ways even if it seems silly from a players self-preservation point of view which the AI don't have.

    Cleaning code for no reason doesn't make sense it is a lot of work, can crash everything if something wrong got deleted and if they reintroduce some feature from former games they would have to rewrite it instead of just modify it. You can see it like DNA which is over 90% inactive and unused but not using it doesn't make it bad, just larger but with the good point that there are things allready in it if you need it instead of inventing it again.
    reminds me of something in WWE Smackdown! VS Raw 2008: After a certain... "incident"... the character of Chris Benoit had been removed from the game... his removal lead to Pyros not working the Career Mode, atleast for Created Wrestlers...
    Every wrong is recorded! Every slight against us! Page after Page, etched in blood! Clan Gunnison! Karak Eight-Peaks! Josef

    Yes! to Boris Todbringer as playable, subfaction leading Legendary Lord with Starting Position Middenheim instead for the Empire! NO to the lazy way of moving Gelt and Volkmar who both belong to Reikland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him?
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Posts: 597Registered Users
    Seems like you never looked at the modding tools the code or the mentioned mods, all these mods do is changing the AI in a more player friendly way so that AI act on higher difficulties like it would act on lower difficulties. Yes it alters how the AI react by changing number but it doesn't make it better or worse, the outcome is just different but the AI is the same.


    I dont care if ppl use mods to make the AI play on easy. And I am sure some things are just design decisions. That doesnt change the fact that people complain about certain AI behaviours, CA say they have fixed them, turns out... not really.

    Cleaning code for no reason doesn't make sense it is a lot of work, can crash everything if something wrong got deleted and if they reintroduce some feature from former games they would have to rewrite it instead of just modify it. You can see it like DNA which is over 90% inactive and unused but not using it doesn't make it bad, just larger but with the good point that there are things allready in it if you need it instead of inventing it again.


    They *did* reduce the size and they did clean up the code. Bloated code is not useful. And the DNA quote... you cannot seriously mean you think it is sensible to have a computer program have 90% unused code.

    I´ll just end this sort of pointless conversation with saying CA is the only major company I can remember that has released major titles with nonfunctional AI (Rome 2), nonfunctional major civ bonuses that are never fixed, FLC that completely breaks core game options, and screws up something so simple as game difficulty, for MONTHS, not hotfixing or even mentioning it. All the while announcing new titles and DLC to buy from them.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 12,599Registered Users
    edited January 17

    Nemox said:

    Please talk to Paradox developers, AI acts far better and works in real time. AI in total war games have been not very smart. The problem now is that it acts with antiplayer in scripted mind doing the nonsense the OP describes. ME is not enjoyable because of that. Eye of the vortex is not much better, but at least playable as hordes are controllable with the ritual button.

    Which Paradox games have you been playing? Their AI is no better and makes similar ridiculous decisions that are easy to abuse.
    Europa Universalis IV diplomacy works perfect. Peace treaties and negotiations works very well too. I have always dreamt of a EUIV with the Total war battles...

    You cant dislike Paradox DLC strategy, but the AI is far better than the one in Total war games, being much more complex.
    What does that have to do with AI? What does that have to do with the scenario OP describes? Treaties are mechanics, not AI issues. If you mean to say the AI always gives you those treaties when you want it to then I'd consider the AI to be ****-poor and excessively hand-holdy.

  • FEARtheMooseFEARtheMoose Junior Member Posts: 118Registered Users
    You all should check this out.



    Its clear that most people bashing on the intelligence of AI don't know much about it really, and what people consider "clever" AI is actually really simple AI, but its disguised by basic psychological tricks. The issue here in TW type games isn't just about making AI that makes good choices, but also creating AI that makes the game enjoyable. These two points are often very conflicting. For example, a computer can beat any human at chess. But for all but maybe 3 people in the world, a Chess AI that smart is NOT fun to play against. The AI in TW is a mix between creating a fun sandbox game with an AI that doesnt make it stupidly hard to defeat. See, a "clever" AI would be programmed to know that to "win" it must take out the human player as its main priority because thats the biggest threat on the map. Thats a pretty decent strategy to win if you ask me. But then that creates a situation of people moaning that the AI is "beelining" for the player and they CANT BEAT IT because its BETTER than them. So here is a classic example of the conflicting parameters.

    Take for example, what the AI builds in its settlements. If the AI was programmed to be as smart as possible, it would build the perfect setup every time, and be pumping out elite doomstacks at a very predictable rate and at x turns you would expect to see them. See you could make the AI build X units, in X combinations to make a very hard to beat doomstack. But see that would be boring for the player, fighting the same highly efficient stack each time, meaning you would have to bring the exact same counter build. So they make the AI have some randomness to make the game more enjoyable and varied. This, due to the nature of randomness [Anarchy!] you will sometimes get weird things popup, like an empire stack with 14 reiksguard cav. Its not that dissimilar to how [hopefully] in some alternate universe im lucky enough to be married to Scarlett Johansson.

    The Battle AI is a whole other ball game of complexity, and thats even harder to get the right balance of fun vs smart than the campaign AI. On one hand you have an AI that can instantly micro manage all 40 - 50 + units at the same time, and react instantly to any move the human makes, but that would be horrible to play against and probably very frustration. Like how the AI would try and dodge Artillery fire. It was certainly capable of doing so since it can react instantly, but look at how many people moaned about that. They all much preferred it when the AI would just rush forward into the arty fire.

    Quite frankly, if you think TW AI is truly bad, you havent actually considered that topic properly, or played many video games. You have to ask yourself, do you really want an AI that is really programmed to be "hard to beat" like the chess programs? Has anyone ever played ARMA, where the AI is "smart" and so always aims for the head or centre mass, so every so often you get headshotted and downed in one hit from an AI you never even saw, and who happened to be 500 metres away? If you have, you know how frustrating that is.

    You cant expect AI to act like a human unless it was a true learning AI, which is not something humans are capable of creating yet. So your asking for the impossible, and moaning about the impossible. You may as well be moaning about why we cant build a Fusion reactor yet, or why we haven't cracked quantum mechanics yet.

    CA is doing a good job of balancing the AI between smart and fun, and this is a process that is always on going because that balance is decided by the player base, which can and does change over time.
  • RichdogRichdog Posts: 551Registered Users
    I am playing with Steel Faith and the AI is pretty ok, so I think mods are needed to really get the best experience. Even siege battles are now at least mildly fun.
    CA have a Facebook page... use the comments section of their posts and express your thoughts on ME poor quality/delays etc https://www.facebook.com/CreativeAssembly/ :)
Sign In or Register to comment.